See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/276118923

Operation Diagram of Circulating Fluidized Beds (CFBs)

Article  in  Procedia Engineering · December 2015

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.232

CITATIONS READS

6 318

4 authors, including:

Huili Zhang Jan Degreve

KU Leuven KU Leuven
42 PUBLICATIONS   1,057 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   704 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Raf Dewil
KU Leuven
150 PUBLICATIONS   6,049 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PhD research project View project

bioethanol production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Huili Zhang on 22 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

The 7th World Congress on Particle Technology (WCPT7)

Operation diagram of Circulating Fluidized Beds (CFBs)

H.L. Zhang1, J. Degrève1, R. Dewil2 and J.Baeyens3*

1
KU Leuven, Dept. Chemical Engineering, De Croylaan 46, Heverlee, 3001, Belgium
2
KU Leuven, Dept. Chemical Engineering, Process and Environm. Technol. Lab, Sint-Katelijne-Waver, 2860, Belgium;
3
University of Warwick, School of Engineering, Coventry CV4 7AL, United Kingdom

Abstract

CFBs are widely used in the chemical, mineral, environmental and energy process industries. Several authors stressed the need
for a clear identification of the different operation regimes in the riser of a CFB, to ensure a better comprehension of the
hydrodynamic context, and thus better define the operation and design parameters.. First approaches to develop a "work map" of
the riser operation, were presented by e.g. Grace[1], Yerushalmi and Avidan[2], Bai et al.[3]. It was further developed by Chan et
al.[4] and Mahmoudi et al.[5,6] for both Geldart A- and B-type powders, in terms of the operating gas velocity (U) and the solids
circulation flux (G), which jointly delineate different regimes, called respectively Dilute Riser Flow (DRF), Core-Annulus Flow
(CAF) (possibly with a bottom Turbulent Fluidized Bed, TFBB), and Dense Riser Upflow (DRU). For a given powder and its
associated transport velocity, UTR, the combination of U and G will determine the flow regime encountered. Experiments in CFB
risers of 0.05 (2.5 m high), 0.1 and 0.15 m I.D. (both 6.5 m high), have demonstrated that common riser operations can be
hampered by a specific (U,G) range where choking occurs. Angular sand, rounded sand, and spent FCC (all A-type powders)
were used as bed material. Gas velocities were varied between 2 and 10 m/s, for solids circulation fluxes between 10 and 260
kg/m²s. Choking is understood as the phenomenon where a small change in gas or solids flow rate prompts a large change in the
pressure drop and/or solids holdup during the gas-solid flow: the stable riser upflow regime is no longer maintained when G-
values exceed a certain limit for a given gas velocity. Experimental results were empirically correlated, and proved to be about
30 % lower than predicted by the correlation of Bi and Fan[7], but largely exceeding other predictions. Introducing the findings
into the available operation diagram [5,6], adds a region where stable riser operation is impossible. The adapted diagram enables
CFB designers to better delineate the operating characteristics.

Keywords: Circulating Fluidized Beds; Choking Velocity; Operations; Solids Circulation Flux; Gas Velocity

© 2015
© 2014The TheAuthors.
Authors. Published
Published by Elsevier
by Elsevier Ltd.
Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Particuology, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Particuology, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy
Academy of Sciences (CAS).
of Sciences (CAS)

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 16 53 28 34;

E-mail address: baeyens.j@gmail.com

1877-7058 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Chinese Society of Particuology, Institute of Process Engineering, Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS)
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.232
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1093

Nomenclature

Ar Archimedes number, [-]

D riser diameter, [m]
dp particle size, [μm]
F45 fraction of particles which diameter is less than 45μm
G solids circulation flux, [kg/m2s]
g gravitational constant, [m/s2]
H height of the riser, [m]
Ret Reynolds number at terminal velocity, [-]
Retf Reynolds number at the onset of turbulent fluidization, [-]
ReTR Reynolds number at UTR, [-]
U superficial gas velocity, [m/s]
Umb minimum bubbling velocity, [m/s]
Umf minimum fluidization velocity, [m/s]
Utf gas velocity at the onset of turbulent fluidization, [m/s]
UTR transport velocity of particles, [m/s]
Ut terminal velocity of particles, [m/s]
Utrans. regime transition velocity, [m/s]
UCh choking velocity, [m/s]
Usalt saltation velocity, [m/s]
Ums velocity at onset of slugging, [m/s]
Uslip slip velocity of the particles, [m/s]
‫ݒ‬ഥ‫ ݌‬average particle velocity, [m/s]
μg viscosity of gas
μair viscosity of air
ε CFB voidage, [-]
εb voidage of the turbulent fluidization bottom bed, [-]
εCh voidage of the choking bed, [-]
ρp,ρb,ρg particle, bulk and gas density, respectively, [kg/m3]

1. INTRODUCTION

CFBs are widely used in the chemical, mineral, environmental and energy process industries. Several authors
stressed the need for a clear identification of the different operation regimes in the riser of a CFB, to ensure a better
comprehension of the hydrodynamic context, and better define the design and operation parameters. First approaches
to develop a "work map" of the riser operation, were presented by e.g. Grace[1], Yerushalmi and Avidan[2], Bai
et al.[3]. It was further developed by Chan et al. [4] and Mahmoudi et al. [5,6] for both Geldart A- and B-type
powders: the operating gas velocity (U) and the solids circulation flux (G) jointly delineate different regimes, called
respectively Dilute Riser Flow (DRF), Core-Annulus Flow (CAF) (possibly with a Turbulent Fluidized Bed at the
Bottom of the riser, TFBB), and Dense Riser Upflow (DRU). For a given powder and its associated transport
velocity, UTR, the combination of U and G will determine the flow regime encountered.
The dominant parameter in fluidisation is the gas velocity. In CFBs and pneumatic conveyors, the solids loading
in general, and solids circulation rate in the CFB are also important. Avidan and Yerushalmi [8] and Yerushalmi and
Crankfurt [9] presented different operating regimes in terms of the system voidage and the slip velocity, defined by
Equation (1), and relating the average particle velocity, ‫ݒ‬തതത,
௣ with the interstitial gas velocity U/ε.
1094 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

୙
ୱ୪୧୮ ൌ െ˜
തതത୮ (1)
க

Figure 1 illustrates the different operation modes of powder gas systems, with representative values of the major
characteristic parameters.
A few selected empirical equations to determine the fluidization velocity at the transition of subsequent operation
regimes are presented in Table 1 to predict the regime transition velocities, Utrans. For pneumatic conveying
applications, additional critical velocities are the choking velocity (UCh) for vertical transport, and the saltation
velocity (Usalt) for horizontal transport.

Table 1: Prediction of transition velocities

Utrans Equations Ref.
బǤబల
Umb ܷ௠௕ ൌ
ଶǤ଴଻ௗ೛ ఘ೒
‡š’ሺͲǤ͹ͳ͸‫ܨ‬ସହ ሻ, F45: fine fraction less than 45μm [10]
బǤయరళ
ఓ೒
Umf ଵǤ଴଻ ଶ [11]
Ar=ͳͺʹ͵ܴ݁௠௙ ൅ ʹͳǤʹ͹ܴ݁௠௙
Utf ଴Ǥସହ ଼ [12]
ܴ݁௧௙ ൌ ͳǤʹͶ‫ݎܣ‬ ǡ ݂‫ ʹݎ݋‬൏ ‫ ݎܣ‬൏ ͳͲ
UTR ்ܴ݁ோ ൌ ͵Ǥʹ͵ ൅ ͲǤʹ͵‫ݎܣ‬ [13]
షరǤళ
UCh ଶ௚஽ሺఌ಴೓ ିଵሻ
ൌ ͲǤͲͲͺ͹ʹߩ௚଴Ǥ଻଻ [14]
ሺ௎಴೓ ି௎೟ ሻ
Usalt ఘ೛ ିఘ೒ [15]
ܷ௦௔௟௧ ൌ ͶǤͶ͵ට ݀௣
ఘ೒

Ums ܷ௠௦ ൌ ܷ௠௙ ൅ ͲǤͲ͹ඥ݃‫ܦ‬, D: diameter of the bubbling fluidized bed [16]

A CFB-riser operates at moderate to high slip velocities and ε >> 0.9. Chang and Louge [17] indicate that the
flow in the riser can be isolated from the other parts of the CFB if G is controlled. The properties in the return loop
(standpipe) do influence the nature of flow in the riser if G is not properly controlled [18]. As far as the operating
gas velocity (U) is concerned, a stable CFB-operation requires external solids circulation and is only possible at
velocities in excess of the transport velocity (UTR). Combining own experimental results and literature data for
powders of Ar ≤ 500, Zhang [13] developed Eqn. (2) for UTR. It is however recommended to operate the riser at a
velocity in excess of UTR, since empirical correlations are expected to be within a 10% accuracy for different powder
systems.
ఓೌ೔ೝ
UTR =൬ ൰ ሺ͵Ǥʹ͵ ൅ ͲǤʹ͵‫ݎܣ‬ሻ (2)
ఘೌ೔ೝ ௗ೛

Some of the previous studies observed a bed at the bottom and a dilute phase at the top of the riser [19-23]. The
axial solids hold-up profile has an inflection point, and this profile is referred to as S-profile. The bed progressively
becomes deeper under increasing higher solid flux [24-28]. Other researchers however indicate that an exponential
profile for solids hold-up exists with no dense bed but with an acceleration zone at the bottom of the riser,
considered to be characteristic of other regimes such as core-annulus flow without bed, dilute transport and/or dense
core flow [12,21,28-30].
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1095

Figure 1: Operation modes of powder-gas systems

From the extensive literature survey, and own experiments, four distinct solids hydrodynamics modes are
confirmed in a CFB operation. The 4 distinct regimes are:

Dilute Riser Flow (DRF), where the solids are predominantly moving upwards with negligible downward flow.
The axial voidage profile is typically exponential with one acceleration zone at the bottom of the riser, near the
1096 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

solids return entry. The velocity of the solids can be predicted by the Geldart equation [31] using the terminal
particle velocity as slip velocity:
୙
തതത
˜ ୮ ൌ െ ୲ (3)
க

The particle velocity has also been expressed by an alternative Equation (4), introducing the slip factor, φ,
resulting in:
୙
തതത୮ ൌ
˜ (4)
க஦

In DRF-regime, the slip factor, φ has a value between 1 [30] and 1.2 [4].

In Core-annulus Flow (CAF), the solids motion is an upward core flow and downward flow in the annulus. The
voidage is typically exponential along the axial direction and the solids velocity can be predicted by Equation (4),
with φ values close to 2 [32, 33]. Under specific combinations of U and G, Core-annulus Flow (CAF) with
Turbulent Fluidised Bottom Bed (TFBB) occurs. The axial voidage profile is of typical S-nature, due to the
appearance of a Turbulent Fluidised Bottom Bed (TFBB). Chan et al. [27] demonstrated that the residence time for
solids in TFBB alone can range from 10 to 20s. The voidage of the TFBB ranges from 0.7 to 0.9 and can be
predicted by the empirical equation (5) [34]. The characteristics of the CAF region above the TFBB are similar to
the above sole CAF flow, as described before.
௎ାଵ
ߝ௕ ൌ  (5)
௎ାଶ

Chan et al. [4] found that the Dense Riser Upflow (DRU) has almost similar characteristics to DRF, the main
difference being that the φ values are fractionally higher, ranging between 1.2 and 1.6 with an average of 1.3.

These various hydrodynamics regimes are also have a distinct bed voidage ranging from approximately 0.98 in
dilute flow (DRF); 0.7-0.9 in a bottom fluidised bed (TFBB), 0.97-0.99 in core-annulus mode (CAF), to ~ 0.9 in
dense riser upflow DRU [35-37]. These voidages can be estimated by the method of Chan et al. [4], with U, G and ρp
as controlling parameters.
The “work map” of the CFB, as developed by Mahmoudi et al. [5,6] for both A and B type powders, is illustrated
in Figure 2, A-B, with the demarcation lines between the regimes as shown in the figures to separate the different
experimentally observed regimes, fitted by appropriate equations.
(a) II/III: ‫ ܩ‬ൌ ͳͲ ൅ ሺܷ െ ்ܷோ ሻଵǤ଼ (6)
(b) III/IV: ‫ ܩ‬ൌ ʹͲ ൅ ሺܷ െ ்ܷோ ሻଶ (7)
(c) IV/V: ‫ ܩ‬ൌ ͸Ͳ ൅ ͳͷሺܷ െ ்ܷோ ሻ଴Ǥହ (8)
The velocity range close to UTR is not indicated since some data points can be considered in a riser flow mode,
whereas other data points are still in a turbulent fluidised bed mode. It is therefore recommended to respect a
velocity margin of about 0.2 m s -1 above UTR.
The range of operating U and G for the known commercial risers was reviewed by Mahmoudi et al. [38] and
by Van de Velden et al. [19,39,40], with reported CAF operation in the range of U-UTR = 0.5 to 5 m s -1 and G-
values of 10 to about 80 kg m-2s-1. CFB operations in DRU-mode are reported for U-UTR values exceeding about 8
m s-1 and G-values between 150 and 1200 kg m-2s-1. These reported modes are in good agreement with the proposed
operation diagram of Figures 2.
Common riser operations can however be hampered in a specific (U,G) range where choking occurs, being
understood as the phenomenon where a small change in gas or solids flow rate prompts a significant change in the
pressure drop and/or solids holdup: the stable riser upflow regime is no longer maintained when G-values exceed a
certain limit for a low to moderate gas velocity. Considerable efforts have been made in probing choking in CFBs,
and several empirical equations have been proposed, as summarized in Table 2.
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1097

Figure.2-A-B : The different operating regimes for group A and B powders [5,6].
DRF
CAF with/without TFBB
DRU
Equation 6
Equation 7
Equation 8
Range of operating conditions where CAF mode is no longer reported and only DRF and DRU prevail

Table 2: Literature correlations to predict choking velocities, UCh

Authors Equations
[41] ୋ (9)
େ୦ ൌ ͵ʹǤ͵ ൅ ͲǤͻ͹୲
஡౦

[42] ଴Ǥଶଶ଻ (10)

ୋ
େ୦ ൌ ͳͲǤ͹Ͷ୲ ൬ ൰
஡౦

଴Ǥଶ଼
[43] ୙ి౞ ୋ (11)
ൌ ͵ʹ‡ି଴Ǥ଴଺
୲ ൬ ൰
ඥ୥ୢ౦ ஡ౝ ୙ి౞

[7] ଴Ǥହସଶ (12)

୙ి౞ ୋ
ൌ ʹͳǤ͸ ൬ ൰ ” ଴Ǥଵ଴ହ
ඥ୥ୢ౦ ஡ౝ ୙ి౞

The objective of the present research hence considered (i) the delineation of the choking phenomenon in different
riser geometries, and using different A-type powders; (ii) the comparison of experimental results with the empirical
predictions of the equations of Table 2, and finally (iii) to adapt the proposed operation diagram of Mahmoudi et al.
[5,6] to include the (U,G) region subject to choking.
1098 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

The typical layout is illustrated in Figure 3.

Figure 3. The lab-scale CFBs with 1. Riser; 2. Cyclone; 3. Diverter valve; 4. Measuring bed; 5. Bag filter; 6. Slow
bed; 7. L-valve; 8. Metal gauge distributor; 9. Air from Roots blower; P. Pressure tapping

Three risers, built in transparent polyethylene to enable a visual observation of the solids flow, were used: 0.05, 0.1
and 0.15 m I.D., with respective heights of 2.5, 6.5 and 6.5 m. The exits of the risers are sharp (90°). Filtered air
from a compressor is fed both to the riser through a metal gauge distributor plate, and to the recycle solids L-valve.
The air velocities are determined from rotameter readings. The riser exit air passes a high efficiency Stairmand
cyclone, followed by a fabric filter. Filter dust is periodically returned to the unit. The cyclone apex discharges the
collected solids in the recycle loop, comprising a "slow" fluidized bed, and a by-pass measuring bed. The slow bed,
constructed as a fluidized bed with a diameter in excess of the other parts of the loop, creates the required pressure
build-up to compensate the pressure drop of riser and cyclone: the slow bed has a diameter of 0.15 m (0.05 m I.D.
riser), and 0.29 m I.D. for both other risers. The height of the slow bed (fluidized at ~3 x Umf) is between 0.4 and 0.9
m. The fluidizing air from the slow bed is vented to the fabric filter for dust removal. Solids from the cyclone
discharge are periodically diverted for a given time to a measuring bed, where the solids circulation flux is measured
from the collected volume (for a known Δt) and bulk density of solids, considered as the bulk density of their fixed
bed. Measured solids are returned into the rig whilst in operation. The L-valves have respective diameters of 0.025
m (small riser) and 0.05 m (both larger risers). The L-valve enters the column ~ 10 cm above the distributor.
Pressure tappings (provided with glass wool plug to prevent ingress of powder into the measuring lines) are installed
every 0.5 m up the riser height. 'Ps were measured by both water manometers, and by solid state pressure
transducer in the 0.1 and 0.15m I.D. rigs (with A/D converter and PC data logging). Pressure gradients along the
height of the riser were measured. Powders used in the experiments are listed in Table 3, with corresponding
relevant characteristics. Average particle sizes were measured by laser diffraction analysis (Malvern). 90 % of the
particle size distribution was situated between the range specified in Table 3. Bulk and absolute densities were
separately measured. The terminal velocity was calculated by the Geldart method [31].
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1099

Table 3. Powders used in the different rigs

Powder dp (μm) ρp (kg/m³) 90 % range (μm) Ar Ut (m/s) UTR (m/s) Riser I.D. (m)
Rounded sand 74 2260 45-90 33 0.44 2.20 0.05
Angular sand 72 2660 35-95 36 0.41 1.73 0.1
Spent FCC 70 1630 45-100 20 0.24 1.69 0.1
Rounded sand 84 2260 35-110 48 0.46 2.56 0.1
Angular sand 98 2660 60-130 98 0.77 3.67 0.15
For a given solids flux, G, the gas flow was progressively and gradually reduced from ~ 10 m/s. The initial
increase in ΔP over the bottom section of the riser corresponds with forming a turbulent fluidized bed at the riser
bottom (TFBB), however with continued solids elutriation. At increased G, or reduced U, it is followed by the
collapse of the solids into a slugging state, with its characteristic 'P-fluctuation frequency of 0.7 - 1 Hz [44]. A
further decrease of the gas velocity at the given G leads to the formation of a fixed bed, without further upward
solids transport. At the given G-value of slugging, the corresponding gas velocity was selected as choking velocity,
UCh, in the present study. Gas velocities were varied between 2 and 10 m/s, for solids circulation fluxes between 10
and 260 kg/m²s.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Characteristics of powders and the dimensions of the risers they were tested in, are given in Table 3. Observed
choking conditions, are presented in Figure 4 with corresponding choking velocities, UCh, at given solids circulation
flux (G). Results illustrate that the particle size has a significant influence at higher values of G; and that the choking
velocity increases when G increases. No pronounced effect of the riser I.D. (0.05-0.10 I.D. for sand of 70 -84 μm)
was noticed.

Figure 4. Experimental choking solids circulation flux, G, versus choking velocity UCh (left of data points: choking; right: stable circulating bed).
Characteristics of powders and rigs used are given in Table 3.

The comparison of experimental data and literature predictions (Table 2) is illustrated in Figure 5 for the 84μm
rounded sand. For all powders, Leung et al. [41] and Matsen [42] underestimate UCh. The Yousfi and Gau [43]
prediction is fair at lower U- and/or G-values. This is also the case when using the Bi and Fan [7] equation: a fair
prediction at low U and/or G is followed by an overestimation at increasing U-values, although the trend of the
predictions is fairly parallel with the experimental measurements. This parallelism was further investigated in Figure
6 for all powders.
1100 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

Figure 5. Comparison of experimental data for 84μm rounded sand, with predictions by equations (Table 2)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 6. Comparison of the Eq.(4)-predicted (GCh-UCh) values with experimental data
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1101

In view of the overestimation by Eq. (12), especially at U ≥ 2m/s, experimental results were correlated with a
slightly modified Bi and Fan-equation, the only difference being the empirical coefficient, reduced from 21.6 to 14.6
in the case of the present study. The resulting equation is given as:
଴Ǥହସଶ
௎಴೓ ீ
ൌ ͳͶǤ͸ ൬ ൰ ή ‫ ݎܣ‬଴Ǥଵ଴ହ (13)
ඥ௚ௗ೛ ఘ೒ ௎಴೓

The comparison of all experimental data, with Eq. (13) is illustrated in Figure 7-A.
To compare the predictive value of Eq. (13) with scarce literature data on choking conditions, Figure 7-B was
developed. Literature data are scarce outside the experimental data that lead to the establishment of the empirical
equations of Table 2. Additional data were extracted from graphs given in papers by Du and Fan [45], Du et al.[46],
and Bai et al. [47]. A comparison of the extracted data and the prediction of Eq. (13) is illustrated in Figure 7-B.
The prediction is seen to be fair, even beyond the range of our experimental G-values.
Having established a correlation for UCh in terms of gas and solids properties, the “work” diagram of
Mahmoudi et al. [5,6], can be adapted, as illustrated in Figure 8, where it can be seen that the occurring choking
regime is specifically important at high values of G, and/or low values of (U-UTR). An inaccuracy of 0.2m/s was
indicated with respect of UTR predictions from Eq.(2).
Both UTR and the delineation curve separating zone IB from zone V should be calculated for the specific
particle-gas system under scrutiny. For Zone V (DRU) operation, U-values commonly exceed 10 m/s with G-values
in excess of 800 kg/m²s. This operation is certainly beyond the U,G-region where choking is likely to occur.
Choking should be considered in the transition regime between Zones IV and V whenever lower excess gas
velocities are selected.
The resulting operation diagram of a CFB-riser better delineates operating characteristics. Choking does not
affect the CAF operation mode, but delays a stable DRU-mode to higher velocities than predicted by UTR. The use of
equations from Table 2 will either over predict (Eqn. 12) or underestimate (Eq. 9-11) the excess gas velocity needed
to avoid choking.

A. Comparison of the Eq.(13)-predicted GCh, pre. values with B. Comparison of the Eq.(13)-predicted GCh, pre. values with
experimental data GCh,exp. for experimental data GCh,exp. from references of
(a) 70μm FCC; (b) 72 and 74 μm Sand; (a) Du and Fan[45]; (b) Du et al.[46];
(c) 84μm Sand; (d) 98μm Sand (c) Bai et al.[47].
Figure 7 Comparison of the Eq.(13)-predicted GCh, pre. values with experimental data GCh,exp.

4. CONCLUSIONS
The choking velocity was measured for different powders in different riser geometries. Equation (13) predicts UCh
for a specific gas-solid system. The existence of a distinct choking region in the operation of the riser, implies that a
previously presented operation diagram is extended with an additional region, especially at low values of (U - UTR)
and higher values of G, where choking will prevent a stable riser operation, as presented in Figure 8.
1102 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103

Figure 8. Operation of a CFB riser, as G versus U-UTR (adapted from[5.6])

Zone IA: Zone I: Transition zone and/or inaccuracy in UTR prediction; Zone IB: Zone of choking; Zone II: dilute riser flow (DRF); Zone III:
core-annulus flow (CAF) only; Zone IV: CAF with turbulent fluidized bed at the bottom (TFBB) of the riser; Zone V: dense riser up-flow (DRU).
transition DRF - CAF: G = 10 + (U - UTR)1.8
transition CAF - CAF with TFBB: G = 20 + (U - UTR)2
transition CAF with TFBB - DRU: G = 60 +15 (U - UTR)0.5
84μm Sand: Eq.(13) predicted

References

[1] Grace, J.R., 1990. High velocity fluidized bed reactors. Chemical Engineering Science, 45, 1953-1966.
[2] Yerushalmi, J. and Avidan, A., 1985. High velocity fluidization. In: Fluidization, 2nd ed., Davidson, J.F., Clift, R. and Harrison, D. (Eds.),
Academic Press: New York, 225-289.
[3] Bai, D., Shibuya, E., Masuda, Y., Nishio, K., Nakagawa, N. and Kato, K., 1995. Distinction between upward and downward flows in
circulating fluidized beds. Powder Technology 84, 75-81.
[4] Chan, W., Seville, J.P.K., Parker, D., Baeyens, J. 2010. Particle velocities and their residence time distribution in the riser of a CFB. Powder
Technology 203(2), 187-197.
[5] Mahmoudi, S., Baeyens, J., Seville, J.P.K., 2011. The solids flow in the CFB-riser quantified by single radioactive particle tracking. Powder
Technology 211 (11), 135-143.
[6] Mahmoudi, S., Chan, C.W., Brems, A., Seville, J.P.K., Baeyens, J., 2012. Solids flow diagram of a CFB riser using Geldart B-type powders.
Particuology 10(1), 51-61.
[7] Bi, H.T. and Fan, L.S., 1991. Regime transitions in gas-solid circulating fluidized beds. AIChE. Annual Meeting. AIChE, Los Angeles 17-22
[8] Avidan, A.A. and Yerushalmi, J., Bed expansion in high velocity fluidization, Powder Technology, 32 (1982), p. 223-232
[9] Yerushalmi, J. and Crankfurt, N.T., Further studies of the regimes of fluidization, Powder Technology, 24 (1979), p. 187-205
[10] Abrahamsen, A.R., Geldart, D., 1980. Behavior of gas-fluidized beds of fine powders. Part I: homogeneous expansion. Powder Technology
26,35–46.
[11] Wu, S.Y. and Baeyens, J., Effect of operating temperature on minimum fluidization velocity, Powder Technology, 67 (2), (1991), p. 217-220
[12] Bi, H.T., Grace, J.R., Flow regime diagrams for gas-solid fluidization and upward transport, International Journal Multiphase Flow 21
(1995), pp. 1229-1236.
[13] Zhang, H.L., Powder circulation systems for heat storage. PhD-dissertation K.U.Leuven, 2014. to be published
[14] Punwani, D.V., Modi, M.V. and Tarman, P.B., A generalized correlation for estimating choking velocity in vertical solids transport. Paper
presented at the International Powder Bulk Solids Handling and Processing Conference, Chicago, Illinois (1976)
[15] Brook, N., Fluid transport of coarse solids, Mineral Science Technology, 5 (1985), p. 197-217
[16] Baeyens, J., and Geldart, D., 1974. An investigation into slugging fluidized beds. Chemical Engineering Science 29(1), 255-265
[17] Chang, H., and Louge, M., Fluid dynamic similarity of circulating fluidized beds, Powder Technology, 70 (1992), p. 259-270
[18] Schnitzlein, M. G., and Weinstein, H.. Design parameters determining solid hold-up in fast fluidized bed system. In: Proceedings of the
second international conference on circulating fluidized beds, Basu, P. and J. F. and Large, J.F., (Eds), Compiegne, France. Oxford:
Pergamon Press, (1988), p. 205-211
[19] Van de Velden, M., Baeyens, J., Dougan, B. and McMurdo, A., Investigation of operational parameters for an industrial CFB combustor of
coal, biomass and sludge, China Particuology, 5 (2007) p. 247-254
[20] Li, J., Tung, Y. and Kwauk, M., Axial voidage profiles of fast fluidized beds in different operating regions, In: Circulating Fluidized Bed
Technology II, Basu, P. and Large, J.F. (Eds.), Pergamon, (1988), p. 193–203
 H.L. Zhang et al. / Procedia Engineering 102 (2015) 1092 – 1103 1103

[21] Kato, K.H., Shibasaki, H., Tamura, K., Arita, S., Wang, C. and Takarada, T., Particle hold-up in a fast fluidized bed, J.Chem.Eng.Japan, 22
(1989), pp. 130-136
[22] Mori, S., Kato, K., Kobayashi, E., Liu, D., Hasatani, M., Matsuda, H., Hattori, M., Hirama, T. and Takeuchi, H., Effect of apparatus design
on hydrodynamics of circulating fluidized-bed, AIChE Symp. Ser. 289, 88 (1992) p. 17–25
[23] Rhodes, M.J., Sollaart, M. and Wang, X.S., Flow structure in a fast fluid bed, Powder Technology, 99 (1998), p. 194-200
[24] Malcus, S., Cruz, E., Rowe, C. and Pugsley, T.S., Radial solid mass profiles in a high-suspension density circulating fluidized bed, Powder
Technology, 125 (2002), p. 5-9
[25] Karri, S.B.R. and Knowlton T.M., Wall solids upflow and downflow regimes in risers for Group A solids., In: Circulating Fluidized Bed
Technology VII, Grace, J.R., Zhu, J. and de Lasa, H. (Eds), CSChE, Ottawa, Canada (2002), p. 310-316
[26] Manyele, S.V., Khayat, R.E. and Zhu, J., Investigation of the hydrodynamics of a high-flux CFB riser using chaos analysis of pressure
fluctuations, Chemical Engineering and Technology, 25 (2002), p. 801-810
[27] Chan, C.W., Seville, J., Yang, Z. and Baeyens, J., Particle motion in the CFB riser with special emphasis on PEPT-imaging of the bottom
section, Powder Technology, 196 (2009), p. 318-325
[28] Bai, D.-R., Jin, Y., Yu, Z.-Q. and Zhu, J.-X. The axial distribution of the cross-sectionally averaged voidage in fast fluidized beds, Powder
Technology, 71 (1992), p.51–58
[29] Rhodes, M.J. and Geldart, D., The upward flow of gas-solid suspensions: Part 1. A model for the circulating fluidized bed incorporating dual
level entry into the riser, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 67 (1989), p. 20–29
[30] Hartge, E.-U., Rensner, D. and Werther, J., Solids concentration and velocity patterns in circulating fluidized beds, In: Circulating Fluidized
Bed Technology II, Basu, P. and Large, J.F. (Eds.), Pergamon, (1988), p. 165–180
[31] Geldart, D., Particle entrainment and carry-over. In: Gas Fluidization Technology, Geldart, D. (Ed.). Wiley, New York, (1986) p. 123–153
[32] Matsen, J.M., Some characteristics of large solids circulation systems, In: Fluidization Technology, Keairns D.L. (Ed), Vol. 2, Hemisphere,
(1976), p. 135
[33] Ouyang, S. and Potter, O.E., Consistency of Circulating Fluidized Bed Experimental Data, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., 32 (1993), p. 1041-1045
[34] King, D., Estimation of dense bed voidage in fast and slow fludized beds of FCC catalyst, In: Fluidization VI, Grace, J.R. and Bergougnou,
M.A. (Eds.), Engineering Foundation, New York, (1989), p. 1-8
[35] Smolders, K. and Baeyens, J., The transport disengaging height in fluidised bed. Powder Handling and Processing, 10 (1998), p. 27-36
[36] Smolders, K. and Baeyens, J, Gas fluidized bed operating at high velocities: a critical review of occurring regimes, Powder Technology, 119
(2001), p. 269-291
[37] Smolders, K. and Baeyens, J, Hydrodynamic modelling of the axial density profile in the riser of a low density CFB, Canadian Journal of
Chemical Engineering, 79 (2001), p. 422-429
[38]Mahmoudi, S., Seville, J.P.K. and Baeyens, J., The residence time distribution and mixing of the gas phase in the riser of a circulating
fluidized bed, Powder Technology, 203 (2), (2010), p. 322-330
[39] Van de Velden, M., Baeyens, J., Seville, J.P.K., Fan, X. The solids flow in the riser of a CFB viewed by Positron Emission Particle Tracking
(PEPT), Powder Technology, 183, (2008), p. 290-296
[40]Van de Velden, M., Baeyens, J. and Smolders, K., Solids mixing in the riser of a circulating fluidized bed, Chemical Engineering Science, 62
(2007), p. 2139-2153
[41] Leung, L.S., Wiles, R.J. and Nicklin, D.J., 1971. Correlation for predicting choking flow rate in vertical pneumatic conveying. Industrial and
Engineering Chemistry Process Design and Development, 10, 183-189.
[42] Matsen, J.M., 1982. Mechanisms of choking and entrainment. Powder Technology, 32, 21-33.
[43] Yousfi, Y., Gau, G., 1974. Aérodynamique de l'écoulement vertical de suspensions concentrées gaz-solides-I. Régimes d'écoulement et
stabilité aérodynamique, Chemical Engineering Science, 29(9), 1939-1946.
[44] Baeyens, J. and Geldart, D., 1974, An investigation into slugging fluidized beds, Chem Eng Sci, 29: 255–265.
[45]Du, B. and Fan, L.S. 2004. Characteristics of choking behavior in circulating fluidized beds for Group B particles. Industrial Engineering
Chemistry and Research 43, 5507-5520.
[46] Du, B., Warsito, W. and Fan, L.S. 2006. Imaging the choking transition in gas-solid risers using electrical capacitance tomography.
Industrial Engineering Chemistry and Research 45, 5384-5395.
[47] Bai, D., Issangya, A.S. and Grace, J.R., 1998. A novel method for determination of choking velocities. Powder Teechnology 97, 59-62.

View publication stats